Monday, January 14, 2008

Steyn Supporters Hack "Law is Cool"?

Earlier this week this site was hacked. Certain plug-ins were uninstalled (spam filters), comment features changed, and passwords altered. We reappropriated the site from the domain server and reset everything.

Perhaps this was done in perceived retaliation for problems on other sites supporting Steyn. It does demonstrate the strong-arm tactics that Steyn supporters, incidently self-proclaimed champions of “free speech,” use against dissenters. This incident follows a similar one on the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) site last December.For this reason, the site "will no longer be carrying content related to the Maclean’s case or Mark Steyn. "Meanwhile, Mr. Steyn is all smiles at the way his side won the debate. He omits mention of the whole cyber-vandalism thing.

Pity. The L-is-C website offered bonafide legal expertise on Mark's (and Ezra's) case and now they have been silenced. That leaves Gary Wise at Wise Law. Hope they don't damage his site.

By way of example, let us consider the non-anonymous pussy of the day, Terry Downey. Mr Downey [CORRECTION: Just for the record, Mr Downey turns out to be Ms Downey] is an executive honcho with the Ontario Federation of Labour, who in an effort to be lead eunuch in the Islamist harem, are supporting Dr Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress. When news of the OFL's backing was made public, a Maclean's reader wrote as follows:

First, the mistaken gender of Terry Downey, which renders the metaphor "lead eunuch" nonsensical, and then the odd subject/verb agreement in "Mr Downey...who in an effort to be lead eunuch...are supporting..."

so no evidence whatsoever to support your slanderous title? maybe the LawIsCool people just dont know how to operate a computer and run a website, maybe they were hacked.

according to your title, you seem to be very certain that its the latter. I figured you must have evidence to back it up. Otherwise my trust in BigCityLiberal and TiGuy as the source of all that is true and good in this world would be irrevocably shaken. cant have that. Please, please tell me you didnt just make a gratuitous accusation against an identifiable group of people. Dont you know that this is against s. 13 of the Human Rights Act. Oh my god, my belief system is collapsing, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

anybody who does not accept every word said by ti-guy or bcl is a neo-con and should be interned for thinking incorrect thoughts.

In any case, it's startling to see neocons becoming interested in evidence all of a sudden.

No seriously, Im not a neocon but Im still wondering whether you have the slightest shred of evidence to back up your accusation. Its very very possible that it is a steyn supporter who hacked the site - but is there even anything at all to back it up?

anybody who does not accept every word said by ti-guy or bcl is a neo-con and should be interned for thinking incorrect thoughts.

Talk dirty to me, baby!

No seriously, Im not a neocon but Im still wondering whether you have the slightest shred of evidence to back up your accusation.

I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

I do believe that most of Mijnheer Steyn's supporters seem to be out-and-out fascists who've been on a rampage harassing everyone who challenges him, and I wouldn't put it past them for crossing the line into illegal behaviour, but that's really more a matter of opinion.

BCL certainly did. You mean the two of you are separate? I thought he was your alter-ego, or just one of your many split personalities?

I do believe that most of Mijnheer Steyn's supporters seem to be out-and-out fascists who've been on a rampage harassing everyone who challenges him, and I wouldn't put it past them for crossing the line into illegal behaviour, but that's really more a matter of opinion.

Fascists as in supporters of government intervention into every nook and cranny of individual's private lives? You either dont understand fascism or dont understand Steyn and his supporters.

At least you admit that there is absolutely no basis to accuse a steyn supporter other than by relying on your own generalization of what these people are - and that is definitely an improvement over your typical "all neocons are stupid" response whenever what you say is challenged.

I thought he was your alter-ego, or just one of your many split personalities?

How dare you accuse me of something without evidence?

Fascists as in supporters of government intervention into every nook and cranny of individual's private lives?

No fascists as in posses of Hitlerjugend and browshirts piling on and repeating the same tired libertarian defense of freedom of expression while simultaneously spewing hate. Take a good look around; Steyniacs aren't pretty.

You either dont understand fascism or dont understand Steyn and his supporters.

I understand both very, very well.

At least you admit that there is absolutely no basis to accuse a steyn supporter other than by relying on your own generalization of what these people are - and that is definitely an improvement over your typical "all neocons are stupid" response whenever what you say is challenged.

I imagine the evidence that the hacker is a Steyn supporter iscircumstantial. But, that said, Law is Cool does not seem to be an overtly political blog, and so don't seem to have, previously, made alot of enemies. They start blogging about Steyn, and they get hacked. 2+2=4.

One thing they mention concerns the changes to the "comments" settings. What I think they are saying is that some "comments closed" posts were opened to comments by the hackers, and the comments that then came through were from Steyn supporters. But I am not 100% clear on this.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party.

(okay the above is from wikipedia, there maybe more authoritative sources out there, but this is nevertheless correct)

Now, by that definition, it is quite clear who the fascists are. It is those who subordinate individual rights for collective rights. That is basically the definition of fascism.

I know you only use the term as a slur for right wingers, but you should know, if you're gonna use it, that fascism actually refers to the left. This is not an argument in semantics, as the whole "racist v. bigot" thing, which is admittedly lame, but rather its about understanding what the words you use mean.

since you wholeheartedly agree with the idea of limiting individual rights (freedom of speech) for collective rights (not offending muslims), you could call your blog BigCityFascist.

One thing they mention concerns the changes to the "comments" settings. What I think they are saying is that some "comments closed" posts were opened to comments by the hackers, and the comments that then came through were from Steyn supporters. But I am not 100% clear on this.

Frankly, after reading that defamatory screed Steyn posted, it never ceases to amaze me how you, Jay Currie, never miss an opportunity to miss the point.

In any case, it's startling to see neocons becoming interested in evidence all of a sudden.

Jay Currie... a "neocon", right. You're going to wear that word out by the way.

It seems to me that Law is Cool has absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to who is behind the alleged vandalism. Therefore, I think it is a stretch to come out and blame Steyn supporters for the alleged hacking.

The fact that pro-Steyn blogs were attacked, does not automatically imply this is a politically-driven quid pro quo. It may very well be, but we have no evidence to support the assertion.

Instead of picking apart my obviously unserious commentary to show off your command of the Latin vocabulary of logic and argument, why don't you put your legendary humourlessness to good use and address this howler:

I know you only use the term as a slur for right wingers, but you should know, if you're gonna use it, that fascism actually refers to the left.

If we don't nip this in the bud, we're going to have to add a special Jonah Goldberg de-programming section to the curriculum for the re-education camps, and there's no way I'm going to be reading Liberal Fascism : From Genghis Khan to Madeleine Kahn.

If Mike Brock were a spam filter:"This email, originating in Russia, a country which produces 68% of spam and with which I have no contacts, offering viagra and stock tips, which is to say words commonly associated with spam, may be spam.

It may also be a perfectly legitimate email from a friend visiting Moscow who has found a great deal on viagra and wishes to share it with me.

Both possibilities are exactly equal, 50-50. Who is to say in this 500 channel universe which is which? I think we should all get along. Allow."

Instead of picking apart my obviously unserious commentary to show off your command of the Latin vocabulary of logic and argument, why don't you put your legendary humourlessness to good use and address this howler

You know, it honestly isn't my intention to impress you. It is my intention to attack the intellectual laziness espoused by people like you.

People who know me from "conservative" circles will tell you that I can be just as persistent in my attacks at flawed-logic from the right.

As a matter of fact, I spent an hour arguing with a man who's uncritical love for George W. Bush drove me bonkers, in a Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. In fact, the debate eventually included four people, the other two from the left-side of the spectrum, and naturally I found myself arguing against both sides.

Wrongly, it should be noted. Plenty of "social conservatives" - that's really a code word for old white people who go to church, right? - have felt the wrath of HRCs. Christians have often been the target of HRCs and have been reluctant to launch complaints; this is statistical fact.

I've yet to see a "liberal" have his beliefs similarly attacked by these commissions, though if one has, the discrepancy still remains.

Unsurprisingly, it is Christian organizations who have been on the vanguard of defending free speech and actively opposing HRCs, because they are most often the victims, notwithstanding your suggestion they are in fact the oppressors.

In the blogsphere, social conservatives such as Kathy Shaidle and Joel Johannson were among the only consistent critics of HRCs before the Ezra and Steyn sideshows began.

A more accurate read is that "liberals" are soft on HRCs and other politically incorrect topics and have been for years. They are complicit by their years of silence.

In the blogsphere, social conservatives such as Kathy Shaidle and Joel Johannson were among the only consistent critics of HRCs before the Ezra and Steyn sideshows began.

I do not suffer any illusion of this. I am not out to get social conservatives, nor am I out to get left-wingers. To that end, I don't think Kathy Shaidle would have anything bad to say about me (she's met me in person multiple times). She invited me to one of her Right-Wing Movie Nights two years ago.

I share many ideological kinships with social conservatives, where they support liberty, free markets, and mutual respect.

That does not mean that because I don't share views on "family values", religious morality, etc. that I am against anybodies right to have them.

I was generally supportive of same-sex marriage, or same-sex unions at the least. But if left-wingers want to throw people like Shaidle or Michael Coren in jail (or fine them) for speaking out against it, who's side do you think I'll be on? I'll let you wager a guess.

"...Meanwhile, some little righty is growing up thinking fascism is related to liberalism."

Let's see...

use organs of the state to suppress speech you disagree with...check

support group rather than individual rights...check

deny common law safeguards to dissenters...check

I can't imagine how a little righty could possibly think liberalism is related to fascism. Nope, being intelligent, our little righty will realize that the left are willing to use fascist means to liberal ends. Distinctions are, after all, important.

If anyone wants to start examining intellectual laziness (or dishonesty), one place to start would be to highlight a cavalier attitude toward the meaning of words and an indifference to (or ignorance of) documented history.

Ti-guy, I am perfectly aware of the distinction between the ideology of fascism and the methodology of authoritarianism. Here's Mussolini on fascism:

"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value...."

However, you do have a good point in that the left is also perfectly willing to use authoritarian means to liberal ends.

There's the whole corporatist/capitalist side to fascism that has been grossly under-examined in this embarrassing and intellectually bankrupt campaign on the Right to recast fascism as an essentially leftist phenomenon.

And any attempt to associate fascism with liberalism is simply absurd. Jonah Goldberg could only do it by arbitrarily defining whatever he wanted as "liberal."

However, you do have a good point in that the left is also perfectly willing to use authoritarian means to liberal ends.

Willing? Or compelled to? How else can you protect the weak and the vulnerable from exploitation without the use of some authority?

And any attempt to associate fascism with liberalism is simply absurd. Jonah Goldberg could only do it by arbitrarily defining whatever he wanted as "liberal."

I agree. But what makes you think you are an adherent to liberalism?

I quote Wikipedia: Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

...

Classical liberals, believe that the provision of negative rights, that is freedom from coercion alone, constitutes freedom.[4] As a result they see state intervention in the economy as unneeded, emphasize laissez-faire economic policy, and oppose the welfare state.

But wait, you're a social liberal ...

Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.

Guys, if you've reached adulthood and you are still debating various meanings of words, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

Words like conservative and liberal are not hats you put on, they are badges you earn. TiGuy for example is a socialist because there's never been a social program or "cause" he's ever opposed, ever.

Whether he thinks he is a liberal or whatever is irrelevant; Stephane Dion's $25 billion taxspending platform, for which he will need to hike taxes, and his Pink Book plan to intefere in marriage contracts to make them even less palatable to men, are the exact opposite of liberal.

Actually no. There is no direct relationship between capitalism and fascism.

I love that..crazy ol' Mike Brock and his definitive assertions about everything.

There is definitely a relationship between capitalism and fascism if you know anything about the history of IG Farben and Thyssen. for example. But I suspect you're arguing that capitalism as an ideal, as a symbolic concept independent of the real world, has no necessary relationship to fascism. This type of thing is why I rarely find arguing with little Conserva-boys enlightening. Everything is discussed as if issues have no relationship to the real world (past or present), and I suspect, among people with little experience of it, this type of solipsism is rather impenetrable.

Don't mistake me for some rabid lefty; I'm actually pretty far to the right of most lefties and I'm not an anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. But I think any ideology or paradigm has to face honestly and full-on the exact nature of how it plays out in the real world if it's going to withstand its critics.